[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H4166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1745
            THE QUINN FAMILY: ANOTHER TRAGEDY CAUSED BY ICWA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, last week I came to this floor to announce my 
hopes that some minor changes can be made to the Indian Child Welfare 
Act so that it will no longer have the chilling effect it does on 
adoptions in this Nation and so that it serves the interests of 
children first.
  Last week I told of the heart wrenching story of the Rost family from 
my own district in Columbus, OH, and their still unresolved battle to 
adopt the twin girls they have had for almost 3 years now. The girls, 
unbeknownst to the Rosts, turned out to be \1/32\ Pomo Indian due to 
blood from a great-great-great-grandparent. The twins and their 
adoptive parents still fear the day that the courts rule the twins be 
returned to a dysfunctional abusive environment due to a twisted, 
inaccurate, yet far too common application of the Indian Child Welfare 
Act.
  Today I want to share with you another of the countless horror 
stories I have heard from all over our country. This case took place in 
the State of Washington, where the Quinn family spent 3\1/2\ years 
fighting for custody of their son, Loren.
  This couple had worked with a 14-year-old biological mother for 7 
months prior to the birth of a baby boy. They were even present to 
celebrate the birth mother's 15th birthday. The prospective parents 
attended the birth of the little boy at the invitation of the birth 
mother and and later took him into their home, honoring her wishes. 
There they loved and nurtured him.
  Weeks later, they got the horrible message, the worst fear of all 
adoptive parents, that nightmare that becomes a reality, that the birth 
mother had changed her mind and wanted the child back.
  Although she had voluntarily relinquished custody of her child, even 
chosen this couple, she attempted to reverse her decision under the 
Indian Child Welfare Act by retroactively enrolling with the Cherokee 
Nation.
  It took 3\1/2\ years to finally reach a conclusion in the courts, 
3\1/2\ years of horror, sleepless nights and worry of the unknown for 
this family who wanted nothing more than to provide a secure and happy 
home for the little boy they loved so much.
  Mr. Speaker, night feedings, diapers, pediatricians, bottles and 
baths, birthday parties, first steps, bedtime stories, bedtime prayers, 
colic, car seats, first words and lullabies, on and on and on, these 
are the joys of a family. But for 3\1/2\ years the normal joy was 
somewhat subdued, because for 3\1/2\ years the future of this family 
was unknown.
  He would have been removed from the only home and family he ever 
knew, and, Mr. Speaker, many courts have ruled this way. They 
misinterpret the intent of ICWA, take these children and send them to 
strange places. Now, we must ask ourselves, is this what is in the best 
interest of the children involved? Is this what ICWA was intended to 
do?
  Mr. Speaker, not only the legislative history but common sense 
dictates that the answer is no. Very simple, minor reforms to the 
Indian Child Welfare Act would clarify these ambiguities. Membership in 
the tribe would be effective from the date of admission and could not 
be applied retroactively as in the case of the Rosts and the Quinns and 
countless others.
  Mr. Speaker, ICWA was intended to stop State court abuses of native 
American children in involuntary placements. It was needed and well 
intended at the time. But it was not intended to interrupt voluntary 
adoption proceedings. As it is currently written, ICWA is a factor in 
every single adoption in this country because it is hard to say, and 
almost impossible to determine what child may or may not, through some 
remote part of its heritage, be some part Native American. And who can 
prepare for a law being applied retroactively, no matter how diligent 
and careful?

  The simple and minor changes to ICWA will preserve the intent of the 
act, ensuring the culture and heritage of Native Americans, and at the 
same time protect the rights of birth parents, adoptive parents, and, 
above all, the children.
  Mr. Speaker, I can almost guarantee that every Member in this body 
has at least one case of a judicial abuse of ICWA in their districts. I 
urge my colleagues to support these changes. Congress created these 
ambiguities, with all the best intentions, in 1978. It is time for 
Congress to correct them and stop the heartbreak.

                          ____________________